On Monday 20 January 2003 8:01 pm, H. S. Teoh wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 20, 2003 at 04:59:37PM +0000, Joe wrote:
> [snip]
>
> > I'd say it's like an Ergative system that has been screwed around with.
> > I actually like the system. It's pretty clean and quite logical. Your
> > example (see/look), could be seen as a transitive/intransitive system.
> > You could say the Originative is the Absolutive and the Receptive the
> > Ergative, which doubles as a Dative in intransitive sentences.
>
> Well, this analysis breaks down once you have sentences like
> "city(org) I(cvy) go(v) forest(rcp)", which means "I left the city for the
> forest."
>
> > I'd actually say it is a pretty natural system...
>
> Heh, well, I created this system as a "logical", or at least, "intuitive"
> way of "fixing" the asymmetry I perceived in accusative systems. But
> though it seems so natural, it still seems to defy categorization.
>
>
> T
Well, evidently 'city' is ablative, 'forest' is allative, and 'I' is
Nominative...
Now, 'I saw the man' = 'I(rcp) see man(org)', correct?
Could it be that the Ebisedian verb 'to see' is actually a
nominative/accusative nominal in this case? There is no verb, but it is
implied. 'from the man (came) seeing unto me'. In the case of a conveyant,
which is either a nominative or an accusative, depending on context, the verb
is in fact a real verb rather than a nominal. In short, Ebisedian is a
nominative system, instead of anything else. The main oddity is in fact the
verbal system, in which verbs are treated as nominals in certain sentences,
and not in others, despite being considered the same.
Sorry, I'm just trying to get some syntax working with your language...:-)